Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Nadie_AZ:Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Darth_Lukecash:It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.

But losses, those are to be shared with the public, right? And since the public is overwhelmingly Christian, all corporations are thus to be held by Christian standards--well, except for that whole, no withholding pay or not owning property into perpetuity, which is Old Testament, and those people were crazy. Which is why our corporations should be able to own people. Because. Jesus.

hubiestubert:Darth_Lukecash: It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.

But losses, those are to be shared with the public, right? And since the public is overwhelmingly Christian, all corporations are thus to be held by Christian standards--well, except for that whole, no withholding pay or not owning property into perpetuity, which is Old Testament, and those people were crazy. Which is why our corporations should be able to own people. Because. Jesus.

I think we should follow the laws golf the old testament and ban shrimp and bacon. Then bring in the new testament ban on usiary.

No matter how they rule, something relevant to this case is going to spark droves of religious people into a massive spontaneous support event for Hobby Lobby. I'm off to buy stock in craft glue and glitter.

Nadie_AZ:Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

It is four years since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision struck down the limits on how much money corporations and unions can spend in federal elections. A number of legal watchdogs have been keeping close tabs on the repercussions. In an essay in Politico Magazine, Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, describes how super PACs, social welfare groups and corporations poured more than $1 billion into the 2012 election cycle; with $300 million of those dollars from undisclosed sources.

As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.

The SCOTUS will side with global corporations. If we could get corporations drunk and knock them up, we could get health care options for abortion.

DamnYankees:Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?

I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.

PanicMan:DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?

I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.

Yep. It's a multi-pincher attack. The efforts to exempt businesses from anti-discrimination statutes due to belief is important here, too. They're trying to get to the point where corporations and their leaders can legally refuse to pay taxes, serve certain kinds of people, or obey laws they deem 'unconscionable'. Don't think the end of the recent Arizona law is the end of efforts at that end.

Target Builder:It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.

I'd so like to see a smackdown to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

I think I could vote blindly for any candidate that promises to deal with that decision.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.

Actually no - as the case does not involve the first amendment.

The case actually arises from a statute written in an attempt to overturn a prior Scalia opinion limiting religious expression. Under federal law, the language of the statute at least applies to both natural persons and corporations.

Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.

FWIW, my understanding of a veil is a piece of cloth that obscures the face but not the voice.

If so, it is "reasonable" for shareholders to speak from behind a veil, but not be seen. So speaking only of the writing, I think Salon's Beutler's metaphor isn't quite what it would be nice if it were.

And that said, if the majority shareholders direct a company to comply with policy X, the company's directors are required to comply with policy X.

Based on my totally not being a lawyer of any sort or having any idea of what is going on here, it seems reasonable that Scalia et. al., could determine for Hobby Lobby's "religious principles" without contradicting their belief toward limited liability and shareholder responsibility.

Money is a force multiplier that allows people to get their message out. If you honestly believe that the framers only expected your ability to talk out loud to be covered by the first amendment, sure fine i suppose.

But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

Teiritzamna:TheShavingofOccam123: As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.

Money is a force multiplier that allows people to get their message out. If you honestly believe that the framers only expected your ability to talk out loud to be covered by the first amendment, sure fine i suppose.

But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

gaspode:Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.

Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.

So you don't believe that corporations can own property or can be sued?

I don't think that corporations are "persons", or needed to be persons in order to own property or be sued. And I don't think they needed to be persons to own property or be sued prior to 1886. And I certainly don't think the court should have waited 128 years to clear up a decision like that attributed not to a judge but to a court reporter.

twat_waffle:gaspode: Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.

Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.

Actually, the business community hasn't been very vocal on this issue. As TFA notes, some have even come out against Hobby Lobby. They see the issue here.

TheShavingofOccam123:But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

Ah so are you switching your argument? That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons? That when people group together their rights go away? Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.

Teiritzamna:That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons? That when people group together their rights go away? Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.

There's a fundamental difference between groups organized for the purpose of advocating a position and those that are not. The issue isn't "should groups be able to get together to speak" - of course they can, that was never an issue. The issue is that almost all corporations are not organized for that purpose.